Bump: The thought of Chess in a Collectible Card Game

[Eshai]

Had an Extra Credit project for Gaming Theory where you post the game you made on a "social media outlet" of sorts. I don't have a Facebook or Twitter, so I figured here would be a lot cooler because this is the obviously superior media platform. What I'll be doing you is giving you a tutorial on how the game works and hope for feedback on the subject.

 

 

This is the card setup in made on Photoshop. It isn't very showy but it does its job.

1. The left no. (the 3) represents Movement. The card can move up to that many spaces in a single direction per turn. With 3 movement, it can move either 1, 2, or 3 spaces.

2. The Yellow Arrows represent what directions you can move in. With the arrows this card has, it moves like a Bishop, which can only move diagonally.

3. The Grey Arrows represent what directions you can't move. This card with its arrows cannot move horizontally or vertically.

4. The right no. isn't health, it's lives. Think in video games. You die, you get to try again. This card has 2 lives. The first time it dies, it returns to your hand where it can be played again. The second time, however, it deceases permanently and you can't use it anymore.

 

Main Mechanic: You might be asking why there's lives in the game but no combat stat. That's because movement is how you fight your opponent.

 

Think Pool. Once a cue ball hits another pool ball, the cue ball stops, and its kinetic energy is transferred to the ball that was hit. Now the pool ball is moving in which depending on your aim can be hit into a pocket for points. That's exactly how Bumping works.

 

Bumping is when 1 of your cards moves into an opponents, but could've kept moving if that other card was in the way. Instead of ending the turn there, the remaining movement is sent to the opponent's card, in which they can be moved off the board. Cards that move off the board lose 1 life, and when out of lives they become unplayable. Friendly Fire is also available, so if you hit your own cards, you can move them in directions they wouldn't ordinarily be able to.

 

This is where most of the depth of the game comes into play. Most of the time both players have 2 or so cards on the board, moving around the pieces in a way that could lead to your opponent losing their cards but also keeping yours from being thrown off the board, all at the same time trying to find a convenient opening to play more cards.

 

Each player has a life total among their 4 cards. Counted up, it's usually 8 or more, but you're capped at 8 lives per game. Once your opponent loses 8 lives or if they've lost all the lives among your cards, you win.

 

Game Setup:

 

Players pick 4 different cards for your hand. There is no Deck in this game, so you have access to everything right at the beginning of the game.

• Play on a 4x5 segmented board. A card takes up a 1x1 space.

Turns: For the turn, you can either:

• Play a card in the row in front of you (4x1 area)

• Move 1 of your cards already on the board.

You cannot do both in the same turn.

 

Similar to Chess, there is very little to each turn. The game takes a lot of thought usually, so having not much you can do per turn means a player doesn't have to wait too long for their turn.

 

This is also a small way of balancing First Turn Advantage since I haven't done anything to the second turn to make it better. There hasn't been too big of a margin between going first and second though, since there is nothing like "drawing cards".

 

 

[spoiler: Advanced Concepts, and by that I mean more arrows]

 

Yeah more arrows. I’ll be putting the explanations for all of the arrows even though I mentioned the essentials earlier just so they’re there.

 

A card can’t move itself in the direction of a Grey Arrow.

Yellow means you can move in that direction spaces up to the card’s movement.

Blue is similar to Yellow, but your movement stat is increased by 1 for moving in that direction.

Red is similar to Blue, but your movement stat is decreased by 1 for moving in that direction.

Orange is similar to Grey. You can’t move in that direction. However, your opponent can’t move your card with units coming from that direction. Think of it like a shield even though it’s shaped like a arrow (eventually will change to a image that’s more appropriate)

Purple is similar to absolutely nothing. You can’t move in that direction initially. Rather, you automatically move in a purple direction after moving in any other direction. If you have several Purple Arrows, you may only move in 1 direction.

Green is similar to Purple, as in it’s similar to nothing else. You can’t move in that direction. However, you can play cards in the zones you would normally be able to move to in that direction.

 

 

All of these were made to add complexity to the game where there was none. There was a lot of depth in how the main mechanic worked, becoming almost Chess-like in your decision making, but the amount of cards I could make was limited. After testing this game quite a bit, I can understand the merit of complexity in games like Yugioh, where having a lot of pieces to work with in making cards spawns not only creative depth but creative decision making when playing the game. With these different kinds of arrows, the amount of cards I can make skyrockets to obscurity to the point I won't have to worry about needing more mechanics for a while. I have a couple other ideas like an arrow where you don't have to move to bump in that direction (it'd be like a ranged weapon of sorts). Not sure if I want that yet but it sounds cool.

 

 

This is something I've been working on and off for a couple months now. As it stands I'm thinking of adding a mechanic inspired by Gwent where you have several rounds where you draw cards from your Deck in different stages. That would not only increase the amount of cards you could have in a Deck but also increase the diversity from game to game and add a little but not too much luck to the game. I have scorned luck before, but I think a small amount that improves the Deck building experience would be worth it.

 

Effect Text is a maybe. For now the different colored arrows will do. 

 

If you reached the end, thank you. I hope for some ideas on arrows I could add eventually for when I run out and ideas for changes that might improve the player experience. While I may not agree with all you have to say, I'll inform you on everything from someone who has spent 30 hours testing the game. 

 

 

P.S. If I made any grammar or Engrish mistakes tell me this post will be something that gets graded wish me luck.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The left no. (the 3) represents Movement. The card can move up to that many spaces in a single direction per turn. With 3 movement, it can move either 1, 2, or 3 spaces.

 

Is this distance locked? Like can I move 3 spaces total? My example would be upper right on space, upper left 2 spaces from there.

 

 

Total distance 3?

[Dova]

Man, I need to get Tabletop simulator and make this a thing. This could actually be proper fun.

 

I could skimp out on actual comments by asking questions, but why not both?

 

First impression are great. I loved the initial simplicity of the concept, not to mention the originality (despite Pool being a thing). I was rather skeptical on the topic of its relations to Chess, considering my love of said game, but I can see the bits of it you were trying to bring along. The whole idea of controlling a time and space is there, but now you have brought in the added concept of working with an external medium that restocks itself. What fun; simple, but effective. The next evolution of Checkers.

 

Of course, then we have the expanded cards. The arrow colour leads to all sorts of potential formats and cards, with over 5 million possible variants of cards, not including lives/move counter. This expanded layer of complexity fixes the only real issue I had with this set; simplicity. It did have many concepts going for it, but I was afraid there wouldn't be much to keep it interesting other than art, but these new mechanics really set up the ante. No other flaws that jump out at me, and I really would love to play this with someone. Hell, once I've unpacked my printer, I'll see if I can make some to try a few test games.

 

---

Question Time!

• If I had 3 cards in a row, and I moved one at an end with a Movement of 2 such that it bumps a following card without really moving, does that mean that the last one will move 2 squares in that direction?
• With Blue, do I A) get one bonus move in each of those directions that don't add up to my total, B) just counter the first move I make in those directions as a freebie, or C) have to move 2 spaces in any of those directions when I choose to do so, and just use up 1 move?
• With Red, do I A) use up 2 moves in order to move 1 space in each of those directions, or B) just not count my first move in that direction, taking it from my move total, allowing me to then move as much as I want in that direction for the rest of that turn?
• With Purple, do I A) move in one of those directions after my turn, or B) just move in one of those directions each time I move? If it is the latter, I would suggest caution when thinking about this mechanic, as despite it being an interesting means of forcing your plays to counteract it, your tile is going to move at a certain direction and the best you can do is cancel out one of its moves per turn, meaning it's eventually going to commit sudoku ;-;
• Why 4x5? Just to provide a middle row without separating the two players too much?
• Can your own cards commit sudoku, i.e. jump off the board via your own Movements?
• Do you have any intended lore behind the cards? Like a thematic world (90% of TCGs), or even just a consistent theme (Chess)? Just thinking about your intended art.

---

Suggestion Time!

• An arrow that draws any card pointed to by that arrow towards it for a Movement cost (either 1 for each "suction" movement, or potentially more). Pink might fit this, as you're potentially helping your own cards.
• If you do intend to have effects of some description (which I don't really think are needed, but might be neat) I would suggest making alternate cards that don't completely overshadow the first, with their own restrictions and perhaps mechanics.[/indent]
• An arrow that, expanding from Orange, prevents the space directly pointed to from being moved to by any card.

Of course, these arrow ideas are merely just me contemplating potential directions (heh) to take, but I would warn you to not overcomplicate them in that regard. You don't want each player to have to carry a little color code guide to compare stuff to...but I guess the skilled pros wouldn't have to. Ah well.

[JessicaMuddy]

This is certainly an interesting game that I would definitely consider picking up. The mechanics (movement and bumping) are unique, and I think that they could be lots of fun.

 

I was thinking about suggesting you expanding the board size to something like 6x6, but quickly realized that that is FAR too big for this game. However, I would like to say that maybe a 5x5 playing field would be better. First, it is symmetrical, which makes it easy to remember and simpler. Second, I think that only having the board be 4 across make it way too easy for any (3) movement cards with sideways or diagonal (6 out of 8 of the directions) movement far too powerful.

 

I really enjoy the idea of playing Chess with cards, it feels like the modern evolution of a classic game. Also, the fact that the cards can move in unique directions depending on their arrows is really appealing to me. Imagine a powerful beast, but it can only move forwards (straight an diagonally)? Or some kind of wall that can only move side to side? There is the potential for so many unique cards even without the extra colours of arrows.

 

Speaking of, the extra colours of arrows. If I'm being honest, I don't like the sounds of most of them. They just seem convoluted and like they're trying to flip the game on its head, which is unnecessary, as this game is already doing that to Chess. I'll go through them in a list.

 

[spoiler=Colour Arrows]

Blue: What's the point of blue? The board is so small that adding this +1 bonus is not needed at all. Instead of having blue, why not just increase the card's movement by one? Though, to counter that, I suppose you could have a card that can only move 1 forward but 2 back, giving it the ability to retreat. I can see the benefit, but just don't think it warrants adding a whole other rule for it. Damn, now I feel 50/50 on blues.

 

Red: ??? Unless you are planning to put red and blue on the same card, this is literally redundant. What's the point of having red when you could just have the card's movement be 1 less and having a blue where you want it to be one more?

 

Purple: It seems like a fun concept to play around with, but I think in reality it might feel cheap, as it allows your card to move in 2 different directions in one turn (If I am reading it correctly).

 

Green: Hey, it's like Link Monsters, neat. However, I feel this could be used to make some absolutely bonkers combos, like summoning a card in your opponent's starting zone that can only move < and > and just having it sweep anything they play. I feel that, like Links, this colour could become very troublesome and cause some ridiculous combos.

 

Orange: Finally, I've saved Orange for last, because I think Orange would be great. The ability to prevent oncoming attacks like that (or maybe reducing the recoil from attacks in that direction - either/or) would add a new, interesting mechanic that at first would be simple, but would be complex to master.

 

 

 

In terms of suggestions, I would like to just say that due to the nature of this game, it would be near impossible to make a card with (4+) movement not broken, which limits your creation options. However, I also understand that expanding the board anywhere past 5x5 would make (<4) movement cards useless. So you might want to think about ways around that.

 

OH, almost forgot. Each card having multiple lives seems complicated and hard to keep track of, unless you maybe make some Life-Counter-paper-clip things to tack on to your cards to show how many lives each card has left. Each card having one life and getting a Deck of 8 (4 in hand at start, 4 in Deck) would in my opinion be easier to keep track of.

 

To conclude, I think that this could potentially be the next big hit, I really do. Imagine a big room full of people playing a card game like this to win prizes and stuff. However, I feel as if the coloured arrows seem a bit too wacky (especially for people just trying to learn the game) and that balancing cards/power creep would be hard to control. You don't want to introduce your game to people, and just have them say: "No thanks, looks complicated." You gotta start simple, then build up from there.

[Eshai]

White

 

// If movement is 3, you can move up to 3 spaces. (hence the explanation of either 1, 2, or 3). You can even move off the board if you really want to, which I’m planning on making useful eventually but for now I’m still figuring out how to do that. So yeah total distance is up to 3.

 

However, direction is locked. You can only move in 1 direction per turn, unless the card has a purple arrow in which it moves again in that direction up to your movement.

 

Dova

 

Comments:

 

Tabletop Simulator

// Hell yeah that would be a good idea.

 

Simple, but Effective

My Game Design Philosophy (As a game designer that was a really great compliment. Sincerely, thank you.)

 

Expanded Cards

// This was a problem I had early on, since the game was nearly finished in the first week of development, since stats could only go from 1-5, or just 2-4 really if I wanted the game to not feel terrible at times. I looked into other games for things I could do the give the game more statistical depth without adding level up mechanics for cards (kinda hate that bit in card games, since usually it means it’s unbalanced). It was hard for me at the time to add complexity, but recently I’ve learned from Yugioh is that complexity can do a lot for a game if used right, so that’s what I’m doing.

 

The reason the arrows have effects rather than cards is that the cards are 2.5 in x 2.5 in, so there isn’t really space for effects at the moment. I might be able to print effects on the backs since there is no Deck though, so that might be interesting. Just not for now.

 

Printing Cards

// If you do print though, I can send you a photoshop printing page, which can print 12 cards at a time. If you have access to Photoshop CC you can even make your own cards. It’s a 1000 layers though (yes a 1002 layer 60 mb Photoshop Doc it’s crazy), so don’t try running it on a bad computer.

 

Making my first set of cards. I have 12 cards without pictures I’ve been testing with the base mechanics in mind, and am making several cards with the new arrows.

 

Eventually though, I want to make the game on Unity, which means the art wouldn’t have boarders and all I would have to show is the stats and the arrows. As for how I’ll do this, think a bit like Stormbound’s User Interface, which is a recent mobile release.

 

Questions:

 

1. Yes, only the last piece moves, and that piece at the end moves 2 spaces (since it’s as if they bumped into each other in sequence). Originally it was that all pieces would move, but that ended up being really dumb. Now it’s a integral part of the game that can be used as an offensive and defensive tactic.

 

2-3. Basic answer is B, but I think I have a better way of explaining it. It adds to your optional total. You’re able to move up to 1 more space in the direction(s) of the blue arrows. So if you had a Blue Arrow pointing North and a Movement Stat of 3, you’d be able to move up to 4 spaces in that direction rather than up to 3 spaces in that direction. Same goes for Red, where it would decrease your optional total for moving in that direction by 1, making it as if your movement stat was 2 instead of 3 for only the Red directions.

 

4. A, kinda. The end of your turn is after all movement. Not like you move during your opponent’s turn (although proximity landmine sort of thing would be cool maybe). Haven’t decided all of the kinks for Purple since I’m not done testing yet, but at the moment it’s mandatory to move at least 1 space in 1 Purple direction if you have a purple arrow.
 

You can accidently commit suicide, although for the most part that doesn’t happen unless you want it to happen (I’ll get to that on Question 6)

5. Couple Reasons

1. It makes it so there isn’t a middle square, which means there’s more to the game than taking the middle zone.

2. Means more diagonal moving pieces can’t move to the opponent’s front row without waiting a turn, which gives me a bit more design space.

3. Decrease the amount of cards you can have in the front row to how many cards you’ll usually have, meaning you can lock your opponent out of playing cards. I’ve tested this and it isn’t too much of a problem. The meta game kinda revolves around countering it at the moment, which has been quite fun tbh. The only pieces that can put that much pressure within 2 turns have only 1 life, so it’s a risk/reward thing.

 

6. You can suicide, but there’s even a strategic reason behind doing that. If you kill your own card, your opponent doesn’t get points, so if you have more than 8 lives among your cards, you can save yourself from 1 attack by taking a turn to get it out of the way, and potentially put it back into your hand to reuse the card.

 

This kind of Deck would have a lot of movement and lives, but very few arrows on each card, maybe 1-2, and then have Green Arrows so you can play things outside of your front row to put pressure on your opponent that way.

 

7. No lore yet, hence the very simplistic card design. Lack of pictures and lore is specifically because mechanics should drive story. Yugioh was a bit that way with Tributing relating to Egyptian Mythology.

 

As for an idea of the aesthetic, I kinda want Science Fantasy, since that gives you the most artistic freedom. Not sure all of what I want to do, but I’ll be thinking about it as I continue to test the game. Until then, I’d like to focus on making the game’s mechanics, and in turn more fun to play.

 

Suggestions

 

Magnet Arrow: I have absolutely no clue if this will work, but it sounds fun so I’ll look into it. I can see it being a more defensive tactic.
 

Effect Text: Think I mentioned this, but I won’t be making effects for now, since I don’t really seem to need it.

 

Super Orange Arrow: The reason I’m adding more complexity to the game is so players have more options, not less. Orange is protection as a means to be a counter to first turn advantage and to be a reactive/proactive play. I don’t really want to restrict zones on the board unless the board itself changes in a campaign of sorts.

Also regular arrows kinda already do this, because usually they don’t want to move in the line of fire. If there’s exceptions, that just means there’s more options. In that way I feel it’s not necessary.

 

No Over Complication: There definitely is a fine line. At best I want 8 different arrows, maybe more if somehow the game gets wildly popular. For now, I have 6.

 

I might change a bit of the shapes of the arrows to look more like what they do, since you can’t move in the directions of Grey, Orange, and Green arrows, but they still point in that direction. Having maybe a cut off arrow (like a Trapezoid) instead might be good, but I tried that already and it looked terrible the way I did it, so for now, the aesthetic is that they’re all arrows.

[Eshai]

【 M U D D Y 】

 

Unique: In most shooters, it’s the mobility that adds mechanical depth. I just kinda skipped a step and made combat itself mobility. It gets kinda ridiculous at times so I’m wondering how far I can go with the game.

 

Expanding Board Size: 5x5 has quite a few weaknesses. For starters, there’s a obvious point where players want to go. That’s not always a bad thing, but I want positioning to matter more for the pieces you play rather than the places you go, since playing cards is a main mechanic and first turn advantage is a thing.

 

It also means there’s not much of a statistical difference between moving vertically and horizontally. I wanted to make it so higher stats weren’t as efficient if you were moving anywhere but forward, which makes their movement more obvious and easier to play around.

 

There’s a lot of advanced strategy problems with 5x5 that I could probably write an essay on (please don’t tell me to write that right now this is already a lot of writing) but I hope this can at least tell you there was more thought into it than it looks from a first glance.

 

Chess-like: Lot of card art stuff I can represent with the system. It’s pretty great.

 

Arrows:

 

Blue and Red: Most cards have more than 2 arrows, and the ones that do have only 2 arrows usually have maxed mobility so really the only thing they would have is Red arrows. As for the point of them, it’s more aesthetic than anything. Since numbers on paper are revealed backwards, I feel color is more efficient at portraying information on cards. So while there’s not much a mechanically important reason to have them, it’s really for player and designer convenience.

 

Purple: Depends. I typically build them with less movement in general, or more movement would backward pointing arrows to make it similar to hit and run mechanics in other games.

 

Green: Fun Fact, how the arrows were represented was inspired by Link Monsters. I feel this game makes them more integral though. Again, it really depends on how you design them. I typically put them on cards with more movement and lives, but with only 2 or so arrows. This means while the piece themselves aren’t very impressive, they can take a turn to get more stuff out there. There is crazy things but I’d like to test the mechanic before I throw it away.

 

Orange: It’s really just a way of countering forward moving cards with a lot of mobility, but yeah there’s more I can do with it. Hasn’t been all that hard to master looking at it though, considering the game is pretty easy to learn in the first place (didn’t even take people I was playing 30 minutes to figure out most of the in depth mechanics of the game without colored arrows).

 

4+:  That’s one of the reasons why the board is 4x5. For starters, usually having 4 movement means you sacrifice going anywhere but forward, or rather having only 1 life. Think of 4 movement as your Queen. I have toyed with playing 4 cards with 4 movement, I would only really have 4-5 health rather than 8. So while I’d be taking more pieces, I would get suckered into losing advantage in the late game. Find that aspect interesting, but after 30 hours of testing it hasn’t been too hard to design around. There is a problem with balancing low movement pieces though, as they’re really not that fun. 1 movement to be balanced has to really have arrows pointing in all directions to be good, which is fine, just kinda sad at the moment. Maybe Green Arrows could help with that in testing them.

 

Life Counters: The bane of existence for playing in a physical setting. I just use dice as life counters. Sometimes I bring out paper. If I make it digital, it’ll just show how many lives the card has. It’s pretty easy to track numbers in video games anyway so that was the targeted platform.

 

Deck: The Deck is new and I’m not all that sure what I’m going to do with it, but you won’t be drawing your Deck until the end of the first game. If I do have match mechanics where players play 2/3 similar to Yugioh, that’s how it will work.

 

Big Hit: Idk. That would be cool, although I’m not sure if I want to get stuck making stuff for a single game forever. I might leave around the time I feel I’ve done all I can for the game unless the people there are just really fun to make cards and content with. I don’t really expect the game to get big because I’m not that big of a person, but if I can get a digital prototype by the end of College that would be cool.

 

Main problem is that it’s a card game in a big market. I’d probably need a publisher to get noticed, and I’m only 18 so that doesn’t sound practical at the moment.

 

On the other hand there aren’t that many good card games for mobile, so there’s possibly other ways.

 

Complexity: People learn Magic and Yugioh. This game without players has been able to get players to know the game within 10 minutes of playing. It needed complexity so that I could keep the game interesting for people that would play the game for longer.

 

If I do a tutorial in a digital setting however, it’ll be easy to teach since they’re not necessary to show the player in the beginning. Start the tutorial with Yellow and Grey, and every other game or so introduce a new arrow. Usually that’s how good tutorials work.

 

I made the game easy to teach specifically because I needed to test with a lot of people to get feedback. It worked and now I’ve played 20 or so different people.

[Dova]

To conclude, I think that this could potentially be the next big hit, I really do. Imagine a big room full of people playing a card game like this to win prizes and stuff. However, I feel as if the coloured arrows seem a bit too wacky (especially for people just trying to learn the game) and that balancing cards/power creep would be hard to control. You don't want to introduce your game to people, and just have them say: "No thanks, looks complicated." You gotta start simple, then build up from there.

 

This is where I think Bump shines. The initial concept is super simple. It's not like MtG, Yu-Gi-Oh, or even Chess, because A) there's a lot less going on in regards to pieces (you don't have to keep track of 32 different things and their potential moves) and B) thanks to card "text", it's much easier to remember information about them. People joke about not knowing what the "horsey" does in chess, but with this game, once you can read the cards, you can almost immediately play it. No phases, no "endless possible openings", just an empty field and your choice as to how you want to populate it.

 

But then we have the many colors, which add a whole new layer of complexity onto that. As long as you have a means of remembering what each color means (a little print-out handbook or something, or even on an online medium, you just click and you see) you'll be set, but the thing is that you don't have to. Say I'm introducing someone to the game, and I have a "starter deck" of sorts. Let's say it contains no colors except grey and yellow, and perhaps a handbook of its own in regards to other colors. We play, I show them the basic rules, and then I say "there are other colors, which you can see here". Going with Eshai's original colors, they're just expansions of his rules. We don't have any Menace or crazy Armades clauses, just a little bit of text regarding moving cards around. It's not complicated, but it's far from boring.

 

Regarding the keeping of track of lives, that did occur to me to. Dunno why I didn't write it down, but if its designed for a digital medium, then that's fair.

 

As for different rounds using the Deck, I would suggest some sort of combining luck with skill between said rounds: After a game, one or both players can look at the top X cards of their Deck (to give them choice), then they can swap 1 card in their hand with one of the revealed cards if they want to, otherwise just shuffle them all back in.

 

Thanks for the explanations, Eshai! Think I've got it now. Oh, if you haven't included the suicide thing in your rules, I would suggest doing so. That could be something in an FAQ or a detail near the back, but something strategy-wise nonetheless.

[Sleepy]

This is a pretty neat idea. I noticed the Link frame as inspiration, although I also kinda thought "something similar to this concept could be used for Capsule Monsters". Referring to the OG ones from the manga and Season 0 (Mokuba's game). It also made me want to try to find a way to adapt the Paradox Brothers' labyrinth game from back in Duelist Kingdom days.

 

I am curious about this. You clearly have tested this a lot and put on a lot of thought into its design. So I wanna know. Is there a a particular arrow(s) that ended up under/over-performing? As in, something that's not as good or not as bad as expected.

 

I have some implications here: I guess a 1 movement card with a purple arrow means it'll commit suicide within 4 to 5 turns if moved, or walk in a straight line if moved in the direction opposite of its purple arrow. How has it proven to work?

 

Does the kinetic energy keep on transferring? If, say, Card A bumped into Card B, which complete's the remaining movements of Card A, and finishes up having the very last move be one that bumps into Card C, does Card B's printed movement now push Card C in a new bump?
 

Did you test out at some point an arrow with the properties of a Knight piece from chess (as in, being able to jump over other pieces for its movement)? I guess that one would go against the intention of your game of bumping cards to one another, that OR it might have proven to be unbalanced by offering a bit too much freedom.

 

As pure theory off the top of my head, it kind of sounds like playing a card back into the field (and forsaking movement for the turn as a result) would give your opponent an bit of an upper-hand if they happen to be near enough your zones that can potentially play cards on. This is not a deal breaker though, since I think it'd be more or less as effective as when you decided to exchange a team member in Pokemon instead of attacking that turn (not a very precise analogy but for some reason I thought of that). So, how has it worked out so far?

 

All in all, loving the content.

 

 

The idea of a potential arrow: If the card would go off boundaries by moving in that arrow's direction, it would instead bounce off and perform the rest of the needed kinetic movement in a direction 90 degrees different to the direction it was pushed from. Then it'd still lose 1 life. It just would still be in-play (this last point is a maybe... I came up with this off the top of my head so by all means, if there's a part of my post you want to ignore, it can be this one xD ).

Example: Card with the arrow to the Right, pushed from the left towards the outside, would instead bounce North or South.

[Eshai]

Dova

Been working on the Deck system, although I'm still working on stuff like the mulligan. I'm wondering if you should have a Deck of 8, draw 6, and pick 4. Or rather have cards drawn in the later game every 5 turns or so, where you may still have 8 lives you just have more options once those lives are depleted (hey that could actually work).

 

As for F&Q, working on it. I've been judging the for AGM and also been doing life stuff. Starting on Monday I'll be able to do a lot more if I can get motivated enough (basically what I'm saying is I'm playing D&D and rolling a nat 20 for inspiration and work ethic stats.)

 

 

Sleepy (Responding to everything individually) 

 

This is a pretty neat idea. I noticed the Link frame as inspiration, although I also kinda thought "something similar to this concept could be used for Capsule Monsters". Referring to the OG ones from the manga and Season 0 (Mokuba's game). It also made me want to try to find a way to adapt the Paradox Brothers' labyrinth game from back in Duelist Kingdom days.

 

// Huh. I’ll look into Capsule Monsters. There’s an actual video game so might have to look into the mechanics.

I am curious about this. You clearly have tested this a lot and put on a lot of thought into its design. So I wanna know. Is there a a particular arrow(s) that ended up under/over-performing? As in, something that's not as good or not as bad as expected.

 

// I haven’t fully tested the arrows themselves, so I couldn’t say. Since I’m on Winter Vacation it’ll be awhile before I find other people to play against testing the arrows. Will tell you when I test it enough. Could possibly setup a way to play on the Duel Portal.

I have some implications here: I guess a 1 movement card with a purple arrow means it'll commit suicide within 4 to 5 turns if moved, or walk in a straight line if moved in the direction opposite of its purple arrow. How has it proven to work?

 

// Ummm… no. It’s automatic movement, but only after the card makes its first move. At the moment you couldn’t technically have a card with only Purple Arrows work, since you can’t actually move your card in that direction. I might change that though, since it’s been weird designing these cards with less options, being therefore not as fun. This probably means drastic changes are coming to the arrow design, but we’ll have to see.

Does the kinetic energy keep on transferring? If, say, Card A bumped into Card B, which complete's the remaining movements of Card A, and finishes up having the very last move be one that bumps into Card C, does Card B's printed movement now push Card C in a new bump?

 

// Card A’s movement would transfer to B, and that same movement would transfer to C. Card B’s movement would not be applied since it wasn’t the card that moved in the first place.

Did you test out at some point an arrow with the properties of a Knight piece from chess (as in, being able to jump over other pieces for its movement)? I guess that one would go against the intention of your game of bumping cards to one another, that OR it might have proven to be unbalanced by offering a bit too much freedom.

 

// This is what the auto arrow’s original intention was, where you could have a 1 movement card with blue arrows (+1 to movement in those directions) pointing up and down, and a purple arrow pointing left and right. That way I can kinda make it work, although if you do it that way it might be better for the game, so we’ll see.

As pure theory off the top of my head, it kind of sounds like playing a card back into the field (and forsaking movement for the turn as a result) would give your opponent an bit of an upper-hand if they happen to be near enough your zones that can potentially play cards on. This is not a deal breaker though, since I think it'd be more or less as effective as when you decided to exchange a team member in Pokemon instead of attacking that turn (not a very precise analogy but for some reason I thought of that). So, how has it worked out so far?

 

// Yep. One of the big parts of strategy is being able to lock your opponent out of playing in zones. This doesn’t happen often since you can’t move and play things in the same turn, but there are cards that can do this incredibly efficiently. When you do though your opponent usually has a piece or 2 though that can threaten the card pressuring them, so I feel it’s fair.

All in all, loving the content.

// Thanks!

The idea of a potential arrow: If the card would go off boundaries by moving in that arrow's direction, it would instead bounce off and perform the rest of the needed kinetic movement in a direction 90 degrees different to the direction it was pushed from. Then it'd still lose 1 life. It just would still be in-play (this last point is a maybe... I came up with this off the top of my head so by all means, if there's a part of my post you want to ignore, it can be this one xD ).
Example: Card with the arrow to the Right, pushed from the left towards the outside, would instead bounce North or South.

// Bouncy Arrow? This probably doesn’t work for vertical/horizontal movement, but diagonal movement would kinda be fun. However, if you add the bit where they can’t be pushed off in that direction, it could probably be a more fun version of the shield. Pretty interesting idea. I’ll have to try it.

[Eshai]

So I've been working on the arrows

 

 

Working on changing the colors of stuff, since I'm working on changing the User Interface to allow for more design options.

 

The Auto (purple) Arrows are being a bit annoying to design around but working fine.

 

Summon (green) Arrows are REALLY fun to use even if they don't have as many movement options.

 

 

I combined the bouncy arrows with the shield arrows, since the shield arrows actually decreased the amount of options in the tame and bouncy arrows wasnt very consistent. Now the idea is when something collides coming from that direction, they can go back in that direction, which can be exploited although not to the point I've found it broken. It can also be used by your opponent, but not as often as I'd like it to be at the moment.

 

 

I'm also working on flight arrows, where you can fly over other units, but doing so no matter how many are in the way only costs 1 movement.

[Astro Dude]

I was gonna say this had been done before: The Archfiend chess pieces in Yu-gi-oh.

[Sleepy]

I was gonna say this had been done before: The Archfiend chess pieces in Yu-gi-oh.

 

Chess is really big so it isn't surprising to see references and different takes on it, and odds are you'll keep bumping into others during your lifetime.

That said, Archfiends abide to Yugioh's rules and mechanics, mostly referencing popular traits of Chess translated to Yugioh to the best of their abilities at the time.

This thread's project is actual customized chess with a few other variations (such as bouncing off the board instead of capturing enemies like regular Chess does).

So Chess Archfiends and this thread have pretty much nothing to do with each other.

 

- - - - -

 

On another note, I was reading a manual on how to play chess this morning. I know how to play the game but I had never bothered with formally reading it.

I just learned that (according to that paper) you can trade your pawns not just for a Queen, but also for Knights, Bishops, and Towers. I found that very interesting, but I have no idea under what situation one would choose Bishop or Tower instead of Queen since Queen is basically both of those combined. Choosing Knight because of the usual movement pattern and the ability to skip pieces would be more understandable, although very situational compared to a Queen's power.